note
Aristotle
<blockquote><em>
why would I want to change it? And why would I want to be wanting to change it willy-nilly? The [id://294759] originator seems to want a wider, more open access to the codebase so things could be changed more easily.
</em></blockquote>
<p>Why not? If you have an idea about how to improve the performance of the site and confidence that you can implement it, why shouldn't you be able to try your hand at it?</p>
<p>You seem to have misunderstood the sentiment completely. The question is not about changing the scope and focus of the community served by the site, but the gears and wiring that make the site run (or rather crawl, which would currently be a more appropriate term).</p>
<blockquote><em>
If [vroom] and the other [gods] were to sit back and keep oly a gentle hand on the tiller then I suspect that perlmonks would rapidly become unrecognisable to most of us as incremental change would drive it in the direction each developer chose.
</em></blockquote>
You're aware that you're saying that the developers would not be interested in preserving what the site is, right? I'm not willing to accept they'll all be quite as naive, mindless or egoistical.
<blockquote><em>
When did YOU last read the manual on the latest gadget you acquired before you tried using it?
</em></blockquote>
Right after I tried it, whether I was successful or not. And long before I proceeded to ask a question, even if not.
<blockquote><em>
Sure I can think of enhancements to perlmonks. Here's a few:
<ul><li>An off topic question section - Say SORW (seekers of random wisdom) where monks can ask non-perl questions without 'polluting' SOPW.
</li><li>Do away with anonymous monks. If something is worth saying, identify yourself with the remarks! Many anonymous posts seem to be critical (thus avoiding a -- for the writer) and often unwarranted. But if you want to make a critical remark just own up to it and take the judgement.
</li><li>Don't even THINK about taking away the CB! It is almost as useful as the rest of the site.
</li><li>Keep doing what we have been, it is very obviously working.
</ul>
</em></blockquote>
<p>Now it is you yourself who is suggesting changes to the scope and focus of the site. And I'm afraid I have to say you don't seem to have understood the spirit of the site (or the mechanics of online communities) as well as you'd like to think.</p>
<p>Off-topic sections are the prime ingredient in the deterioriation of communities. Experience shows they tend to acquire a life of their own, and will eventually attract by people who don't have anything to contribute to the community's main focus, but liked the atmosphere in the offtopic section.</p>
<p>Doing away with Anonymonk is a pretty snobbish attitude. It would deprive newly arrived people from an inviting opportunity to ask a question, or outside visitors who've been made aware of a thread that's relevant to them from an opportunity to communicate their stance. (We have had various cases where a comment on some project was posted and the project leader was subsequently contacted and added their quip.) We have also had [tilly] (representing many others who might face repercussions if their posts here were identified) wander among us as Anonymonk while his work contract prevented him from participating openly.</p>
<p>For these reasons, I'm strongly opposed to both suggestions.</p>
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-114691">
<p align="right"><em>Makeshifts last the longest.</em></p>
</div></div>
295666
295666